Okeedokee. I choose to believe in God because I do not wish to live in a universe without love.
Irrational? Perhaps. Illogical? Nope. But then, all logic stems from the chosen axia. You seem to have chosen axia such that no “logical” explanations will be acceptable to you.
I’m quite aware that they are theories. But as you say, they are “consistent with the Universe as we observe it”. Can you say the same thing about religion? You’d need to come up with some kind of actual evidence in support of it, which is basically what my OP was asking for (or at least, what I intended it to be asking for).
There is actual evidence in support of the Big Bang theory. And belief that science will eventually explain everything is not faith - based on actual evidence (science’s success at doing so thus far), that belief is a perfectly valid, supportable hypothesis. It is not “firm belief in something for which there is no proof” (def. faith provided by m-w.com).
You’re absolutely right. I’m looking for reasons that are both logical, and rational.
Thank you for pointing that out to me.
Please make sure to read the rest of my post.
Thanks.
I think there is a huge difference between having no scientific proof and being illogical. My faith is completely logical, if not scientifically provable. Prime Mover. Watchmaker. As well as non-scientifically arrived to knowledge all play a part in my faith. And it’s certainly logical.
Do you really expect a logical proof? If so, I think you’ve misunderstood logic.
Are you looking for a proof using a logical system containing some rules of inference, starting from some axioms, leading to the conclusion that “God exists”? That’s fruitless. The theorems of a system of logic (the things that can be proven from the axioms according to the rules of inference) are contained completely in the axioms and rules. There’s no way for anything “new” to get into the system. Thus, you can only “prove” that there is a God if you first assume there is a God. Most people don’t find that very compelling.
Another difficulty is incompleteness. Since 1931, we’ve given up on being able to “prove” everything that is true in a logical system. Any system powerful enough to express arithmetic is either inconsistent or incomplete. We’re usually not interested in inconsistent systems, which means we’ll have to accept incomplete systems. A logical system is incomplete if it contains truths that cannot be proven. You can’t say that because a thing is unprovable, it is necessarily untrue.
Why would you choose to not believe in God, unless his nonexistence were proven logically? Think carefully before you trot out “you can’t prove a negative”. Euclid nicely proved that in plane geometry, there does not exist a triangle has angles that add up to 181 degrees. Besides, when two propositions are each other’s negation, who gets to say that one is “the proposition” and the other is its negation?
Perhaps you are really talking about scientific as opposed to logical knowledge. In that case, you should consider that there are other ways of knowing besides the scientific method. You might even consider some of them “valid” or “rational”.
For instance, the scientific method tends to approach statements like “God exists” with maximum skepticism. We cannot assume it is true until we have evidence that it is true, which results in a hostility toward such statements. However, there are many real world situations where maximum skepticism denies knowledge to some truths. If you were interested in finding out whether I liked you, and you approached the question from a position of assuming that I did not like you, you might never discover that I do, in fact, like you.
Applying a standard of “logical” or “scientific” knowledge in arenas where it is not suited could itself be called irrational.
kg m²/s²
Fine. Good reason. Perfectly logical, and rational. But you’re really not the type of person I wanted an answer from. I haven’t experienced anything similar myself, and as far as I know you could have been hallucinating.
Also, what was that quote? “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a miracle”? Just because no one knows how something happened doesn’t mean it can’t be explained.
On the chance that a serious answer is desired, I recommend a popular theological text such as Hans Küng’s Existiert Gott?, 1978, R Piper & Co. Verlag, München. There’s an English translation, Does God Exist?, 1980, Doubleday, and there may be subsequent printings. It’s by no means the end-all of the discussion, but it played a sizable role in helping me think through my own beliefs. Observations:
FWIW, it’s Clarke’s Law, and states “Any sufficiently advanced technology is essentially indistinguishable form magic.”
and isn’t there also someoneorother’s corollary? "If your technology is distinguishable from magic, then it is * not sufficiently advanced * 
Prove it.
I’m quite serious. Prove it. Prove it so that no one can refute you. Prove it in a way that you totally and completely understand.
I am 100% certain that you can’t do it. Why? Well, for a number of reasons:
[ul]
[li]No scientist has ever 100%, concretely proven this to be true[/li][li]If a scientist had proven it to be true according to the laws of science that we are currently aware of, he could still be wrong. There’s probably a lot of stuff that we haven’t discovered yet, things that could turn his “proof” upside down.[/li][li]A proof of this claim would–as far as I am aware–involve advanced forms of science and mathematics that you and I would be unable to understand. I find this to be similar to the experiences of those who have “met God.” Their experiences have proven to them beyond the shadow of a doubt that God exists. Yet we have no way to learn whether they actually DID observe God. They could be crazy. Similarly, there could be some sort of error in the figuring of those who prove your fact. Could you prove it? I highly doubt it. [/ul] [/li]
Yes, I am being a complete and total nit-picking, über-skeptic chickie here. However, that’s because I believe that faith in science is just as illogical as faith in God. And yes, when you get to the levels which address the beginning of the universe, you are depending very much upon faith, and not upon any standard form of logic.
“Cause the science book said so” is not a logical explanation. Sorry.
I can’t. But in my opinion that theory is more plausible than the theories of religion, simply because it does have evidence backing it up. Read my post on theories a few scrolls up.
Wisest Novel
I heard about that book a while ago and somehow forgot about it. I’ll remember to look for a copy, this time.
Of course! Those are the only arguments that are fun!
Let’s see…reason. How about going to Heaven for all of eternity. That could be one incentive.
And it is my opinion that the theories of science and the theories of religion are not necessarily incompatible. As you seem to be taking them to be. Though my conclusion on how you’re taking it could be totally wrong; let me know if it is.
Additionally, there are people who at least claim to have seen God. As far as I know, nobody has claimed to see the beginning of the universe. If I take that as my evidence–that, if someone has seen it, it is more likely to be true than if no one has seen it–what makes that any more illogical than your reliance upon numbers?
By the way–I’m an agnostic theist. Not Christian. I feel the need to make this distinction in these sort of debates, just to avoid assumptions based upon my username.
[not directed soley at you, AotL, I am just mildly peeved by a theme I have seen in recent threads] I dislike it when people start throwing the word “faith” about so causually, apparently based on a view of the world where, since nothing can be absolutely proven to be true without relying on axioms, and axioms are accepted on faith, therefore every belief is equally reasonable and useful to hold: a belief that imperceptible three-toed purple aliens are responsible for the creation of tofu is just as logical and just as reliant on faith and just as reasonable as the beliefs of the hardest of hard scientists–or, for that matter, a reasonable theist. Using the “we can’t absolutely prove anything, therefore belief X is just as reasonable as belief Y” is like using a sledgehammer to swat a fly on your own nose–not only overkill, but you destroy yourself in the process. At least give your religious faith the credit of thinking that a belief in it can be explained without thowing into question the existence of anything.
Science does have a lot of empirical evidence backing it up; evidence that can be shown to all. Religion, and a belief in God, for many people does not have this sort of empirical evidence. When you trivialize religious faith by comparing it to the “scientific” faith that when you toss an orange in the air that it will most likely fall to the ground, I think both science and religion suffer.
And you know, if all beliefs are based on faith and so all are equally valid, I don’t know what we’re doing in this forum. 
You are correct, to a point. This is just one of my reasons, and it goes hand in hand with the rest.
You can always find an alternative explanation for everything if you look hard enough. Every single one of the reasons I gave can be explained away. But together, the make up the basis of what I believe. If I only had one reason, that’s too easy to explain, and too flakey, but in combination they make (for me anyway) a pretty compelling case.
As for hallucinating - I wasn’t but I can’t prove it 
Here’s a try. Adopt “God exists” as an axiom. Use the following rule of inference: “an axiom is provable”. Now, for a proof:
God exists.
QED. Not very satisfying? See what I mean? Logic isn’t going to help you.
I was quite serious about my analogy of the question of God to the question of whether I liked you or not. Here is one way you can learn if God exists: Open yourself to him. If he comes in, he exists.
You seem to be starting from the principal that all things which cannot be proven are false. We know that that’s not even true of arithmetic! Do you think that adopting a principal which denies access to potential truths is rational? I’m suggesting you think carefully about what you mean by “rational”, and what “rational” evidence you could find for either God’s existence or non-existence.
Fair enough. For all I know, you could be blind. Just because someone blind since birth can’t experience the color orange doesn’t mean there’s no such thing. As an atheist, I don’t believe that someone’s experience is divine, but that’s a far cry from calling their perceptions hallucinations. I simply have a different interpretation.
Sorry, but just to clarify, I meant spiritually blind, not physically.
Well put. And that same principal must lead to the conclusion that all religions are equally valid. After all, we can’t ever really know, can we?